Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

slowboring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 355 posts

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#341

Post by ravi-delia »

tekknik wrote: post #320
ravi-delia wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you replied to said nothing to imply they disagree with you. Perhaps we are forced to choose as a society between technocracy and misinformation. I'm suspicious of that line of argument myself, but "technocracy is bad" and "misinformation isn't a problem" are separate arguments.

Sure they did, it was implied in these three points: > - The less expert you are at a subject, the more energy is required to sift through the crap. > - Most people are either not expert at anything, or are expert in a narrow field of interest. > - Information no longer flows in the same way it once did: it now diffuses through a social graph which is prone to significant network effects. Non-experts can have a bigge…

That only argues that non-experts will be fooled. The universe is under no obligation to make misinformation less bad just because technocracy is even worse. Maybe we're just screwed!

Between you and me I suspect it's not that big of an issue, but no matter how bad technocracy is (and I agree that it's very bad) it still has no bearing on whether non-experts proliferate misinformation.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#342

Post by native_samples »

fortuna86 wrote: post #337
native_samples wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are just expressing frustration that other people who care more about winning debates than you are able to do so. Paraphrased, it's "impossible" to argue with other people because they "always" have evidence that supposed experts are somehow unaware of, despite being experts, and weirdly enough when you "dismiss [the evidence] out of hand" they "claim victory". That's usually how debate works, yes. That's the who…

> so-called "misinformation" that, when examined carefully, turns out to simply be information that the current ruling classes don't like, often because it exposes them as hypocrites There's the conspiracy language, I had a hunch. Instead of discussing the world in vague platitudes, lets get specific. 20% of the US is avoiding getting a safe and effective vaccine, as a result thousands have died unnecessarily. This i…

Why change the subject? We were talking about misinformation and debate in the abstract. But alright, now I will again beat you in debate on a different topic. You claim nobody had issues with the polio vaccine. Are you referring to the polio vaccine that despite a six year development time, accidentally gave 40,000 children polio due to defective manufacturing?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/

"In April 1955 more than 200 000 children in five Western and mid-Western USA states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus proved to be defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first mass vaccination programme against polio had to be abandoned. Subsequent investigations revealed that the vaccine, manufactured by the California-based family firm of Cutter Laboratories, had caused 40 000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10."

I thought the Cutter Labs incident was quite well known, but apparently not.

Now, back on topic. See what I did there? You made a false claim and then asserted that anyone who disagrees with you is the victim of misinformation and engaging in "conspiracy language". You believed there were no issues with the polio vaccine when in fact there were such severe safety issues the first mass vaccination programme had to be abandoned. I responded to this with facts and citations, showing conclusively that it's actually you who is a victim of (pro-vaccine) misinformation in this case, not anyone else.

All this is possible due to the internet. You're claiming the "information space" is a "minefield". But that doesn't seem to hold up. The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news. And that's what Yglesia's is saying - people who doggedly stick to what media/government selected "experts" tell them are constantly being trounced in debate and made to look foolish by facts and data. They react to this with a massive case of projection.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#343

Post by native_samples »

fortuna86 wrote: post #334
native_samples wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, this is just railing against the turning tide. Yes, in fact "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct (especially as the latter are perhaps most accurately described as coalitions of the former), and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed. If you can't accept that this happens regularly, then there is indeed no hope for actual ex…

> "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct Citation? > and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed Now we are getting back into "feelings" about what is true or not, or more plainly "this is what I want to hear" vs. "this is was is factually accurate". I am confident individual social media accounts become better confirmation bias machi…

"What we need to do individually is make sure the sources we trust deserve our trust. No anonymous blogs, no podcasts with a long history of getting important things wrong with no accountability."

And how exactly do you think the "sources we trust" are held to account? They don't hold themselves to account and I think you'll find they work hard to cancel anyone who reveals their flaws under their own name.

Example: you've proven above that whatever sources you are relying on to educate you about vaccines have misled you. You thought there were no safety issues with the polio vaccine, which is a false claim. Nobody has been held to account for misleading you and you probably won't do it yourself. I knew about this incident, but it wasn't from reading the New York Times or watching CNN. It was from venturing outside these untrustworthy sources and reading far more broadly than journalists are comfortable with anyone doing.

"You should not automatically trust most sources, but some get things right far more than others."

Like which ones? If you don't trust CNN (which I'm using here as a token to mean "all similar media outlets"), then where are you getting these false ideas from? Enquiring minds want to know.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#344

Post by feurio »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #339
feurio wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, the capitals are important - they help you not to conflate things. I might not support Antifa beause of (some of) their activities. But I'm anti-fascist because I'm not fascist. I might not support BLM (although I'd struggle to see why) - I don't support them financially, if that counts. The opposite of beliving that black lives matter is believing that black lives don't mater. There is no Woke. There is only wo…

> I might not support Antifa beause of (some of) their activities. But I'm anti-fascist because I'm not fascist. So then perhaps you might see how someone else might not support the woke movement because of some of their activities, even if they think the goals of the movement are good? > The opposite of beliving that black lives matter is believing that black lives don't mater. Yes, and? Where are the people saying…

Clearly it's not just pronouns that the anti-woke have a problem with, it's also proper nouns.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#345

Post by baobabKoodaa »

feurio wrote: post #344
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I might not support Antifa beause of (some of) their activities. But I'm anti-fascist because I'm not fascist. So then perhaps you might see how someone else might not support the woke movement because of some of their activities, even if they think the goals of the movement are good? > The opposite of beliving that black lives matter is believing that black lives don't mater. Yes, and? Where are the people saying…

Clearly it's not just pronouns that the anti-woke have a problem with, it's also proper nouns.

I'm now the second non-native English speaker in this thread that you're making fun of, for my less-than-native ability of speaking English. We can continue this discussion in Finnish if you'd prefer that.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#346

Post by feurio »

baobabKoodaa wrote: post #345
feurio wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly it's not just pronouns that the anti-woke have a problem with, it's also proper nouns.

I'm now the second non-native English speaker in this thread that you're making fun of, for my less-than-native ability of speaking English. We can continue this discussion in Finnish if you'd prefer that.

Absolutely no idea that you were not a native English speaker - as far as I recall it's been impecable. Genuinely, hand on heart mean that (although the following sentence will be tongue in cheek).

However, if you're looking for offence where none was intended ... doesn't that mean that you're woke? That's what they do, right?

Let's just ... Finish.

(And the Italian guy, I wasn't mocking - certainly not his English - I found the first message difficult to undertand what he meant, so wanted to make sure that he was referring to what I thought he was before contining. God knows his English is better than my Itaian. Or Finnish).

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#347

Post by fortuna86 »

native_samples wrote: post #343
fortuna86 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct Citation? > and this happens frequently enough that lots of people have noticed Now we are getting back into "feelings" about what is true or not, or more plainly "this is what I want to hear" vs. "this is was is factually accurate". I am confident individual social media accounts become better confirmation bias machi…

"What we need to do individually is make sure the sources we trust deserve our trust. No anonymous blogs, no podcasts with a long history of getting important things wrong with no accountability." And how exactly do you think the "sources we trust" are held to account? They don't hold themselves to account and I think you'll find they work hard to cancel anyone who reveals their flaws under their own name. Example: y…

> And how exactly do you think the "sources we trust" are held to account? They don't hold themselves to account

Perhaps this is a reflection of how little people understand the journalism industry. To get something published on NYT.com, there is a process of fact checking and verification that goes through every comma, every claim. Of course mistakes are made, but they are publicly addressed and accounted for. There is no just thing as a purposeful, objective lie that remains unaccounted for.

> I think you'll find they work hard to cancel anyone who reveals their flaws under their own name.

The Joe Rogan / Tucker Carlson opinion stuff can be left out of this convo without losing anything.

> You thought there were no safety issues with the polio vaccine

Nope. I said "no one had any issues with a polio vaccine MMR, etc." not that there weren't an adverse health effects. You project what you think i'm saying so you can argue against that. I don't know if you are aware that you are doing this, but it would make you a perfect cable news guest as that is the tactic of choice.

If you can't even read what I said and accurately respond, there's no point in continuing. This isn't Thanksgiving and i'm not unlucky enough to be at your table.

> Like which ones?

Again, try and educate yourself in the basic differences in journalism, who follows the rules of accountability and accuracy and who blatantly ignores them while still attempting to come across as "news".

If you still want to respond, cite the claim you've made first:

> "single social media personalities" routinely beat major news media organizations in being correct

Citation?

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#348

Post by fortuna86 »

native_samples wrote: post #342
fortuna86 wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so-called "misinformation" that, when examined carefully, turns out to simply be information that the current ruling classes don't like, often because it exposes them as hypocrites There's the conspiracy language, I had a hunch. Instead of discussing the world in vague platitudes, lets get specific. 20% of the US is avoiding getting a safe and effective vaccine, as a result thousands have died unnecessarily. This i…

Why change the subject? We were talking about misinformation and debate in the abstract. But alright, now I will again beat you in debate on a different topic. You claim nobody had issues with the polio vaccine. Are you referring to the polio vaccine that despite a six year development time, accidentally gave 40,000 children polio due to defective manufacturing? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC13837…

> Why change the subject?

Lol actually getting off of vague platitudes is "changing the subject". Right, enjoy your weekend.

> You made a false claim

No I didn't, you either misunderstood what I said or deliberately lied about it to argue a strawman, because that's easier than actually addressing what i'm saying.

> The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watching TV news.

Lol. Truly, you made me laugh out loud. Funny you didn't say "is more accurate" - because that would be an impossible claim. You said "is less dangerous" which is also patently false. This book is the beginning of most study on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/d...

It's unequivocal and damning.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#349

Post by cgriswald »

native_samples wrote: post #324
cgriswald wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's plenty wrong. It's a common tactic of cranks to bring out lots of sources without worrying about the quality of those sources. It's literally impossible to argue with them because they can always trot out something that even an expert in the field under discussion has never heard about before or that ostensibly supports their claim, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Then, when this is dismissed out of hand…

You are just expressing frustration that other people who care more about winning debates than you are able to do so. Paraphrased, it's "impossible" to argue with other people because they "always" have evidence that supposed experts are somehow unaware of, despite being experts, and weirdly enough when you "dismiss [the evidence] out of hand" they "claim victory". That's usually how debate works, yes. That's the who…

This isn’t about reason and evidence. A crank believes that if an opposing theory is unable to explain his evidence (even if his evidence is completely false or even fabricated) in an immediate manner, then it means his theory is the correct one. Hence why it is impossible to reason with such a person.

If you think that’s how debates work, we probably have nothing to say to each other that the other would find valuable.

In any case, your ascribation of those feelings and ideas to me and my post are baseless and completely false. You’ve failed to comprehend the point.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#350

Post by native_samples »

fortuna86 wrote: post #348
native_samples wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why change the subject? We were talking about misinformation and debate in the abstract. But alright, now I will again beat you in debate on a different topic. You claim nobody had issues with the polio vaccine. Are you referring to the polio vaccine that despite a six year development time, accidentally gave 40,000 children polio due to defective manufacturing? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC13837…

> Why change the subject? Lol actually getting off of vague platitudes is "changing the subject". Right, enjoy your weekend. > You made a false claim No I didn't, you either misunderstood what I said or deliberately lied about it to argue a strawman, because that's easier than actually addressing what i'm saying. > The internet is really much, much less dangerous for your mind than reading ordinary newspapers or watc…

Your claim:

> no one had any issues with a polio vaccine

Reality:

> 40,000 cases of polio, leaving 200 children with varying degrees of paralysis and killing 10

There's no misunderstanding or straw man here. You made a false claim whilst accusing others of misinformation. Which seems to be often the way it goes with "misinformation" - not a vague platitude, of course, but the topic of the entire thread.

Post reply on HN